From: Timothy Partridge (timpart@perdix.demon.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 17:00:51 EST
You recently said:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:30:10 -0800 (PST), timpart@perdix.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > I think that it is intended to use the eqivalent Tibetian character sequences
> to
> > produce the various types of Biruga, rather than MFVSs.
>
> Sound eminently sensible and Unicode-like to use Tibetan symbols for Mongolian
> where appropriate. Is the following what you're suggesting ?
>
> 1st variant form = U+0F04
> 3rd variant form = U+0F04, U+0F05
> 4th variant form = U+0F04, U+0F05, U+0F05
Yes. It's just my suggestion though. We'll have to see what everyone one else thinks.
> > This does raise an issue
> > over the rotated varient but that perhaps could become the standard glyph for
> > the character in the Mongolian block.
> Is it possible to change the standard glyph for a character once it has been
> carved in stone on the Unicode code charts ? And if it were possible, then how
> would the horizontal form be represented ? There is no exactly corresponding
> form in the Tibetan block.
Oops, I was reading my mail remotely and didn't have any books available and
my memory failed me. You are quite right. I think we do need a variation
selector for that varient.
On the issue of glyphs, I think I am right in saying that Unicode doesn't
standardise these. The ones in the code charts are just examples to aid in
identifying the character. Font designers can do whatever they fancy, but if
all their letter As came out looking like Bs they wouldn't be popular. The
glyphs on the Mongolian code chart are especially unusual since some obscure
varients have been picked to provide unique glyphs for the characters across
the various sub-scripts. I would have thought that a keyboard for typing
Sibe, say, would just have isolated / initial forms on the keys.
Tim
-- Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 17:40:21 EST